Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing. Does anyone actually believe that 99 weeks to find employment is necessary? Currently the max number of weeks for unemployment is 73 weeks in certain states. Take a look at the chart and look at the unemployment rate for the states tat have the 73 month maximum unemployment span.
Every single state with a 73 week maximum has an unemployment rate higher than 9%.
Every single state with a 40 week maximum had an unemployment rate under 6%, many under 4%.
So why would we want to extend unemployment to 99 week? Why is this comment fron Rand Paul considered “crazy?”
"[Paul] There was a study that came out a few months ago, and it said, if you have a worker that’s been unemployed for four weeks and on unemployment insurance and one that’s on 99 weeks, which would you hire? Every employer, nearly 100 percent, said they will always hire the person who’s been out of work four weeks.
When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy. And it really – while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the people you’re trying to help."
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
Every single state with a 73 week maximum has an unemployment rate higher than 9%.
Every single state with a 40 week maximum had an unemployment rate under 6%, many under 4%.
So why would we want to extend unemployment to 99 week?
[/quote]
Adorable…I remember when i didn’t know the difference between “causation” and “correlation” too!!!
I might have been…12?
Are you competing for cutest kid right now?[/quote]
Are you still 12??
Yeah, there is just absolutely no way that the longer the state allows one to take unemployment benefits results in more people being on unemployment. Impossible.
How about this: you lose your job, you get unemployment benefits until you find a new one no matter how long it takes. You think this will cause more or less people to take advantage of unemployment?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
Benefits are directly correlated to what you were earning before you lost your job. The max benefit in Michigan is $362 per week and is 67% of after tax earnings. That means to collect the max you would have been making close to $30 an hour. Someone that has the skills for a $10 an hour job is not making anywhere near the max, in fact they will be lucky to see $175 per week and that is without taxes being withheld.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[/quote]
I’m not sure about your state but here it is 67% of your post tax wages. Furthermore you have to pay income tax on what you collect.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[/quote]
I’m not saying that someone that got laid off from a 9/hr job gets 400 weekly, I’m saying that the average person that does get $400 weekly will not take the 9/hr job over continuing to collect benefits and looking for something better. It is a problem with the program that accepting certain jobs equates in a pay cut from collecting benefits.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m saying that the average person that does get $400 weekly will not take the 9/hr job over continuing to collect benefits and looking for something better. It is a problem with the program that accepting certain jobs equates in a pay cut from collecting benefits. [/quote]
What’s your proposal? Lower the benefit or raise the wage?
I’ve learned, especially in situations lke this, that I should not try to speak for everyone, or dear and try to put everyone in certain categories.
There will always be people that abuse the system, regardless whether its @40wks or 99wks.
I can tell you that New Hampshire sucks for unemployment. It’s bad enough that we’re a “right to hire” state as it is, but the percentage based amount of the benefits as well as the quarterly based time is a serious fucking joke.
For example: I’m currently unemployed and going through my second appeal of my weekly benefit amount because of how incredibly low the amount is they want to pay out.
I would rather see a higher weekly pay out % over an extended payout period, I mean fuck you gotta atleast pay minimum wage to people. NH pays for 26 weeks, then has federal fo 14 weeks after that…I don’t really see a problem with that length
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much an individual makes? For example my first time on unemployement the job I was “released” from I was making $18 phr. During the process of searching for work, I came across a construction company that was hiring. But they only wanted to pay me $10 perhr. Now although that was a $3 perhr upgrade from what I was collecting on unemployement, it was still $8 less than I was making before and what I needed to pay my bills and continue living.
So should I have taken that job? Spent 72 hrs a week working to make what I usually would make in 40 hours? Had no time to look for another job, had no time for my family, had no time to network with anyone else besides my surroundings…would that be the route you would have gone?
Or should I have continued looking for a better job, with more reasonable pay?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much an individual makes? For example my first time on unemployement the job I was “released” from I was making $18 phr. During the process of searching for work, I came across a construction company that was hiring. But they only wanted to pay me $10 perhr. Now although that was a $3 perhr upgrade from what I was collecting on unemployement, it was still $8 less than I was making before and what I needed to pay my bills and continue living.
So should I have taken that job? Spent 72 hrs a week working to make what I usually would make in 40 hours? Had no time to look for another job, had no time for my family, had no time to network with anyone else besides people in my surroundings, who were really just other laborers…would that be the route you would have gone?
Or should I have continued looking for a better job, with more reasonable pay?[/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m saying that the average person that does get $400 weekly will not take the 9/hr job over continuing to collect benefits and looking for something better. It is a problem with the program that accepting certain jobs equates in a pay cut from collecting benefits. [/quote]
What’s your proposal? Lower the benefit or raise the wage?
[/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m saying that the average person that does get $400 weekly will not take the 9/hr job over continuing to collect benefits and looking for something better. It is a problem with the program that accepting certain jobs equates in a pay cut from collecting benefits. [/quote]
What’s your proposal? Lower the benefit or raise the wage?
[/quote]
We had people in Tampa call into a radio show proud of how they are getting unemployement and welfare and such, but get money on the side (I’m assuming drugs) and drive BMW’s, etc, etc.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[/quote]
No, it’s not but I know of several individuals who work part time under the table in addition to their unemployment and they do just fine. For them.[/quote]
Seems like some people should be more weary of who they associate themselves with…
All these anecdotes and such are somewhat amusing to me. I don’t think I know anyone right now that is collecting unemployment. Certainly not on a personal level. I wonder how it is that so many people who cry about unemployment from the rooftops also know so many people taking advantage of that system?
Like all the food stamp recipients talking on their Obamaphones in the checkout line in front of them, swirling around keys to a Lexus, with a $200 pair of shoes on. Maybe I am just unobservant, but I’ve never been standing in Giant and seen that scenario played out. Maybe it’s just me…
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much an individual makes? For example my first time on unemployement the job I was “released” from I was making $18 phr. During the process of searching for work, I came across a construction company that was hiring. But they only wanted to pay me $10 perhr. Now although that was a $3 perhr upgrade from what I was collecting on unemployement, it was still $8 less than I was making before and what I needed to pay my bills and continue living.
So should I have taken that job? Spent 72 hrs a week working to make what I usually would make in 40 hours? Had no time to look for another job, had no time for my family, had no time to network with anyone else besides my surroundings…would that be the route you would have gone?
Or should I have continued looking for a better job, with more reasonable pay?[/quote]
But you don’t want to wait to eat your raisins because they’ll turn into grapes…
